User:Scott/Talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Scott  (Redirected from User talk:Scott)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Please read the introduction to my user page before requesting any administrative assistance. Thanks.


Welcome Articles and project maintenance Administration (vandalism, disputes...) General chat, everything else Old archives

 


Nomination for deletion of Template:Irony mark[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Irony mark has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 talk 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer#Proposal

I was sorry to see the irony mark go. I thought it was gorgeous. I try to avoid irony here, so couldn't find any examples I could use it on to argue for "keep". Is that something you came up with, or is it a universal symbol? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I found one. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Resysoping[edit]

Discussion relating to my successful request for a return of access to the admin toolkit can be found at WP:BN and at WT:AC/N (those links to be converted to archive links when available).  — Scott talk 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooh! Thank you, I completely forgot :-)  — Scott talk 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Hi Scott,

I hope you will accept my late apology for going too far in the bureaucrat’s noticeboard discussion. My comment about attack dogs was uncalled for and is not based on evidence of any action on your part. The tangent was far away from the point I hoped to make, which though difficult, could and should have been kept civil and on the basis of good faith. I should have returned to this earlier in the week regardless of current "real life" pressures.

Thanks -- (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @: very much accepted. You could have sent it to me by email, but chose to make it here. That was a big thing of you to do. Thank you.  — Scott talk 00:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@: Quick question... would you be okay with striking the comment before it gets archived? Best wishes.  — Scott talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tools returned[edit]

Per my post at WP:BN, I have returned your tools to you. I look forward to several years of me having absolutely no cause to regret doing this. Good luck. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Just wait until those several years are up, then all hell's going to break loose.  — Scott talk 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC) that's a joke, kids

This talk page - a request[edit]

I couldn't help noticing when I came here that you're all tangled up with your page redirects. Please could you tidy it up, perhaps using your shiny new tools? --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific.  — Scott talk 10:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your talk page, conventionally, would be at User talk:Scott. There's a redirect from there. On talk pages, we visitors get a helpful "+" symbol at the top of the page to help us create new sections, which isn't present when we visit a page in someone else's userpages, like this one. I'm not sure why discomforting us helps your campaign against Flow, but I do note that a couple of weeks ago you mentioned "until I make something more convenient" and I was hoping you might be gently nudged into making something more convenient. :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The new section link can be added. –xenotalk 12:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, xeno; that's a magic word I wasn't familiar with. Dweller - I'll be resuscitating my talk page archives quite soon.  — Scott talk 12:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Superduper, well done both of you. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Done!  — Scott talk 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A40 road in London[edit]

Ah, you're back. Never seen that article before, it does look a bunch of unsourced original research duplicating several articles, but I fear if I sent it to AfD, a bunch of trolls will come out of the woodwork screaming their heads off for reasons well documented in Wikipediocracy some time back. On that note, I did think about joining the forums a while ago but never got round to it; given what's just happened to you I'm glad I didn't as it would have probably train-wrecked my RfA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Damnit, I thought this was about the Sidcup Bypass (A20) and got excited for a minute.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
If I can think of anything exciting to write about the Sidcup Bypass (other than "well at least we haven't hit a traffic jam yet"), I'll let you know. Meanwhile, this is the reason I'm looking at Oxford Street at the mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh!
Congratulations Ritchie, that's great news. Well, since you've gotten that out of the way, I suppose there's nothing stopping you signing up if you wanted to. I reckon you'd be a good person to have around.
And yeah, that article seems a bit dodge, especially since its creator got blocked back in 2008. I do know they say "AfD is not Articles for Improvement" but really, that happens all the time, doesn't it? If it brings it to the attention of the roads people, then at least they'll sort out any factual inaccuracies.  — Scott talk 11:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you mentioned it on WO, but it's strange how I am not generally considered a "roads person" yet I have been in charge and done key amounts of software development for one of the largest road fan sites in the world. Must be because I take the piss too often. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No kidding! I actually just added a SABRE link to that article.... For what it's worth, I'm firmly in the "roads are of interest" camp. There are are however a lot of problems with much of the road coverage here, in my opinion, mainly in relation to notability and detail level.  — Scott talk 12:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am dipping my toe back into road transport articles, having racked up a few GAs like Bond Street and Piccadilly recently. I seem to recall Peter Damian complaining A466 road was crap (and having a look it just now, he's right) - I could probably rewrite it with the appropriate books, but I'm telling you now if I get any hassle over pointless roadgeek or template crap, such as what received perfectly fair criticism at WPO, I will drop it like a stone. I have more than enough other things in my life to get on with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Ears going red Peter Damian (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting though that Bond Street was in this state until only recently. Well done. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a pie!!![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg
Steel1943 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Welcome back!!! I thought I was seeing things when I noticed you commenting somewhere (cannot remember where that was right now.) I saw what happened about a year or so ago, so I hope all is well ... or at least better. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Histmerges[edit]

Saw the recent one you did and ticked off at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/01. You're right that those first couple of pages are pretty boring, but I don't mind doing them sometimes because it's basically automatic as opposed to most histmerges which require at least a little bit of thinking. Anyway, on to why I'm posting here – you might be interested in Special:MergeHistory. It only works for the really simple ones that were done by a clear cut-and-paste move and didn't have an initial redirect at the target location, but when it does fit it's much simpler than moving the pages back and forth. Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Thanks! I had actually forgotten that that tool exists... I remember when it was created but not enabled for a long time, and have never actually used it. I'll give it a go on one of the early merges shortly.  — Scott talk 14:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Procedure[edit]

requires a post here as well. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can't see the problem with that, there's not much anyone can do for you.  — Scott talk 12:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject template redirects[edit]

Hi again. A year ago you said you might get me an updated version of the list. Is there any chance that you'll do? I asked Ladsgroup to help too but we are not even sure how you created it! PiRSquared17 never replied neither. Please please please help me with this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: If you want, I can do it. πr2 (tc) 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Does this work for you? Sorry for taking a year to do this. I haven't been doing my Wikimedia duties very well for several months. PS, glad to see you're back, Scott. πr2 (tc) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
PiRSquared17 that's great! Can someone please convert this table? I think GoingBatty would be interested about this list too! -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Magioladitis and PiRSquared17: Hello! Magioladitis, as you may now have noticed your request last year came just before I had to take a long break from this place. But, now that I am back I'll be delighted to produce an updated table. Pi, thanks for the welcome back, and thanks also for the fresh data. Perhaps I'll actually get around to my long-threatened setting up of a database clone now, so I can run queries myself.... M, stay tuned for an update.  — Scott talk 10:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ladsgroup created User:Ladsgroup/WikiProject template redirects. I think now statistics should be a piece of cake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

After the statistics is ready we may be able to use a bot to orphan all the redirects with very few transclusions to reduce complexity. Especially, all these templates with WikiProject/WP, apart from a very few, could be orphaned to reduce confusions and favor standardisation. @Bgwhite: too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Will you still be maintaining User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects? GoingBatty (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty Ofcourse. I need help to update it though. I think we could use Battybot to standardise banner names while it adds/removes WPB shells. Can you please help? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Magioladitis: Doing... with the bot starting with the redirects with the largest numbers of transclusions, while I'm manually working on those with the smallest number of transclusions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty Feel free to update the wikikproject script in case some redirects are not covered by it! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

PiRSquared17 can you please run the script once more? I did a lot of work this week. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis: Here you go. Also, ones beginning with "WP" (I somehow neglected them last time). By the way, you can run these queries yourself if you want on Quarry. πr2 (tc) 03:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have an updated version. How do we create the statistics now? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for that, Scott.Peter Damian (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: You're most welcome. It's to this site's shame that it wasn't done immediately on your unblock. As you can see I've started an AN discussion requesting that the account blocks also be lifted. It may be helpful if you could drop a brief comment on it to confirm that you have no need for or intention of using any other accounts now that your current account is in good standing.  — Scott talk 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have commented at AN, indicating preference for unblock. Peter Damian (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
And thanks again for the socks! Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to have finally ironed that out. Happy editing!  — Scott talk 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Heh... I ironed your socks.  — Scott talk 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Heh Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Invitation[edit]

Thanks, Scott, for the invitation to the Ten Year Society, for which I see just adding the template enters me into the category (and, presumably, the Society) automatically. I've read your user page, so I take this invitation as a high compliment (especially since I do not recall that we ever crossed Wiki-paths before now), recognition that I am one of those Wikipedians who do their best to make this a better place. I certainly try, for what one user's modest efforts can do. As for your own case, given your extreme dissatisfaction, I'm glad you stayed on. For every disgruntled editor who leaves, the overall problem just becomes that much worse. Regards, Alan W (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit at City wiki?[edit]

The merge proposal was archived at Talk:Wiki/Archive 4! Maybe next time I should put an edit summary before saving any edit. Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 09:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm[edit]

Syncronicity. Well, kinda. Writegeist (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have had to remove all pages related to the other place from my watchlist, including COIN now. Too much stupid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Speaking of which, I just noticed this, which our fuming friend was doing at the same time as the template discussion. Desperation smells like sour milk.  — Scott talk 15:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

May I join your secret club?[edit]

Noia 64 apps karm.svg Today is this user's WikiBirthday.
This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 years.

Where does the time go? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Well, it was secret, thanks a lot! :P But yeah, it is amazing how time flies on things like this.  — Scott talk 12:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Port of Abidjan[edit]

Here it is, and there's a category on Commons. I may translate, but I'm leery because I'm not familiar with much of the terminology. On the other hand the corresponding Spanish article is a stub, there are a couple of sources given, and I don't doubt there are English sources to be found. You may well be able to do a better job than me, though, so here's my vote for you to do so :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Thanks, I linked to that article in the post :) There are a lot of "missing articles" that could be translated, but the relative importance of this means I might actually try it... that whole thread is basically a collective "to do" list for anyone that's interested in filling a gap.  — Scott talk 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that thread is one of the few things that have tempted me to join that site. But it's never-ending. Every article I do and almost every book I read on the bus makes me aware of new gaps here. It is utterly inconceivable to me that anyone can truly think there are very few articles left to be written. So I'll leave this one to you, since reading between the lines, you feel more confident with the terminology than I do. Hope you're feeling better. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone started the article, providing a useful example of the faults of the WMF's translation-by-adapted-Google-Translate initiative. I've made a small start on cleanup. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Autonomous Port of Abidjan is now about as good as I can make it, given my level of ignorance on the topics involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Thank you and Discuss-Dubious very much for reducing the cultural bias of EnWP a little by doing this.  — Scott talk 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! (Also, Terriffic Dunker Guy). We should translate the French main next, I guess. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an ArbCom candidate[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an ArbCom candidate, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an ArbCom candidate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an ArbCom candidate during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rcsprinter123 (express) 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia[edit]

Editors are rewriting the essay I created to contradict the original meaning and intention. They are turning it into something it is not. I want this stopped immediately. What can be done? QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Not much, it's an essay which means anyone can edit it, if it was in your Userspace or it had been created as a Wikiproject it would have more protection. As an essay it's subject to general consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If someone wants the essay deleted they should not trash the essay if they can't delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
'Should not' I perfectly agree. However it's unfortunately allowed. Unless someone actually starts edit warring or editing against consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
They are editing against the intent of the essay. That's against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sadly not. If multiple editors want to change it from the original authors intent, they can. Consensus is what forms amongst the editors. If there is one editor, it's easy. If there are 3 or 4, then discussion takes place on the talkpage. This wouldn't be the first essay repurposed from its original intent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding jokes to the page and other nonsense is not productive. Some editors are not editing the essay but are not focusing on improving the essay. They are also being unproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi QuackGuru. As Only in death comments, as a project-space page, it's subject to general consensus and editing policy. If there are changes happening to it that you disagree with, you'll need to work it out with the editor(s) in question on the talk page.  — Scott talk 18:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
When it is moved to userspace what are my options? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest your best option will be to try and set it up as a Wikiproject rather than an essay. Generally WPs are allowed more rigid control over their direction. People joining specifically to skew the WPs intent/focus can be dealt with more vigorously. But ultimately it might still end up being nominated at one deletion or another... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization[edit]

Hi Scott! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Matter in article Prospecta Software:[edit]

Dear Scott, Can you please send me the matter in the article Prospecta Software which was deleted by you yesterday so that I can write it in my own words. Iam new to this and will take care to avoid just copying and pasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radha Mohan Giri (talkcontribs) 10:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Radha Mohan Giri: Hi. The deleted article was two paragraphs copied from the company website, a mention of the founder's name, and a list of the three locations of its offices, so there's not really anything for me to provide. Thanks for saying that you'll take care to avoid copyright issues. However, before creating the article again, please read our advice for people looking to create company articles. Prospecta Software may not reach the minimum level of notability to have a Wikipedia article.  — Scott talk 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision Deletion[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_11&action=history

Please delete the revision (06:28, 21 February 2016‎ Film99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,097 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (added ray kelvin) (undo) [automatically accepted]) on the page. I do not want some other users stalking me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film99 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Film99: I don't understand what you mean; please clarify. Either way, the edit doesn't qualify for revision deletion.  — Scott talk 23:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. I'm wondering if you can delete the edit because it displays my profile username for all to see, and I do not want some people on that specific page viewing my profile because it really upsets me. Film99 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Film99, if you mean your username 'Film99', that is not a valid reason for Revision Deletion. RevDel is to hide/delete problematic content/edits, not the wikipedia username of the user who made the edits. That only happens in rare cases if someone creates a username that contains identifiable information (like their real name) and faces problems because of it. As 'Film99' is effectively an anonymous name, it doesnt fall under that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Only in death - that's almost exactly what I would have said to Film99.  — Scott talk 15:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a problem but not sure..[edit]

See Here. After a content dispute where the user wanted to include info that was badly sourced, they have copied an 'unvandalised' (read: including the unreliable material) version into their sandbox. Unless they wrote the entire article, does this not violate the copyright attribution in some way? Due to the lack of history in their sandbox? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Hi, sorry! I completely missed this. Basically yes, you have to use {{copied}} or one of the related templates on the talk page of any page containing material copied from another.  — Scott talk 15:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I had forgotton about it. The problem with tagging it with {{copied}} is I dont know the ID/Diff it was copied from, so I cant fulfil the parameters. (similar problems with other templates) Is there a way of finding out what historic diff at the Jedediah_Smith it came from? Otherwise the only other alternative I see is nuking it or nominating it at MFD, which given the user would probably be pouring petrol on a fire. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Flow lives![edit]

*cough* It was actually noticed at the time, however Jorm and DannyH insisted it was still being worked on and supported despite the statement to the contrary. Hence the clarification that DannyH had to send out 4 days later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Essjay[edit]

Hey Scott, I've done the history merge, and it seems everything is in place except for the sysop-level protection which was on the page. That doesn't require steward rights to re-add, so I'll leave that one to you :-)

If you find any missing revisions let me know, and I'll merge them in too. I've done a look around, and I think I have everything. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: A bot tidied it away off Meta before I had the chance to reply. It looks good! Thanks very much.  — Scott talk 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed section talk page wikiwikiweb[edit]

Hi Scott, i read your message (thanks for the notification!). I'm aware one cannot change the article itself because it requires proper editing, and i knew that the talk page is about discussing the article (and i thought also the content of the article). I know also that i cannot just put everything on my userpage because it is not intended to be the first collection of my contributions, so where do i put something related to a topic but not related the article of the topic? (maybe some other wikimedia project that you know?) Pier4r (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestion? Pier4r (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pier4r: Hi, sorry for not getting back to you more quickly. I would suggest putting it in a subpage of your user page, and then it seems reasonable that you could leave a short note on the talk page linking there for anyone who's interested. Best wishes,  — Scott talk 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Ok, i consider the suggestion but can be that if i do a couple more "talks" entries like the one that you removed, i end up abusing the sub pages? I really do not want to have all the effort removed because the direction was not proper. I understand that whining about wasted effort is not so constructive but it depends on the amount of it. Pier4r (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

S&M[edit]

Because that's previously had a prod challenged on it, if I delete it under the WP:PROD process someone will no doubt start shouting about admin abuse. Thus it has to be done the long way round, even though I can't imagine anyone seriously believes the sources exist to write a genuine article on a gaggle of defunct greasy spoons dotted around the artwank belt. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just popped by to say, this section title contains far less interesting content than I had hoped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose technically the other use of "S&M" can involve one's sausage being mashed. ‑ Iridescent 09:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
718smiley.svg Cheers for that Iridescent. Incidentally, there used to be one underneath the Westway on Portobello Road, so they did get a little farther afield!  — Scott talk 09:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Spitalfields, Islington, Smithfield, Leadenhall and Portobello, plus a concession in the O2 and (briefly) the catering contract on the riverboats. (I'm curious as to how you feel their Portobello location—a stone's throw from Rough Trade, the Electric Cinema, Minus Zero and the part time punks of Freston Road—doesn't qualify for membership of "the artwank belt"?) ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
As a native Londoner, my mental image of Portobello is stuck firmly in the Bedknobs & Broomsticks era. Sadly the reality is more like Shoreditch these days. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I grew up very close to Portobello Road, and when I was a kid it was still a lot like the way Cat Stevens sang about it. Now it's like Camden High Road only without the alternative fashion. That breaks my heart.  — Scott talk 13:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The seeds of the current "Camden West" status of the northern half of Notting Hill have been long-germinating. The property bubble may have dealt the final blow to the land of Absolute Beginners, but as far back as the 1980s the place was so full of earnest hipsters that an achingly pretentious indie label could use the postcode as their name, and Frestonia and the foolishness brought in its wake goes back a decade earlier. (Ground zero of hipster-led gentrification has since moved on from the traditional edge-of-zone-one to the post-riot zones of Haringey and Clapham Junction, as the organic pulled pork merchants and faux-vintage stores take advantage of the regeneration subsidies and the number of rich students slumming it. It's only a decade since I wrote Broadwater Farm,* but that already reads like a historical curio as detached from the modern day as The Condition of the Working Class in England.) ‑ Iridescent 10:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
*I cringe at what passed for reliable sourcing back then.
Huh, regarding Frestonia, you know you've been on Wikipedia too long when you click on a photo to find out where it came from and discover you actually took it and have since forgotten. ‑ Iridescent 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry[edit]

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Paragraph break[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Paragraph break has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki archaeology[edit]

You seem to know your way around, perhaps you can help: Talk:Children of God does not list that it has six talk page archives. After looking through as many of the talk page archive templates as humanly possible, i gave up trying to find the right one for the primary talk page. Is this one solveable with a template or do i list them manually? Thanks. :^) 173.87.173.112 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Good find. They shouldn't have been at that title at all, because the article they relate to was moved to Family International in 2010. I've reattached them to the talk page there. Best,  — Scott talk 09:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Playtime is over[edit]

Yep.  — Scott talk 10:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I didnt think French comedies were your thing... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Ha! I love Tati. Playtime is amazing.  — Scott talk 14:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)